Palestine During World War I | Jewish Virtual Library Tweet On the eve of World War I, the anticipated break-up of the enfeebled Ottoman Empire raised hopes among both Zionists and Arab nationalists. The Zionists hoped to attain support from one of the Great Powers for increased Jewish immigration and eventual sovereignty in Palestine, whereas the Arab nationalists wanted an independent Arab state covering all the Ottoman Arab domains. From a purely demographic standpoint, the Zionist argument was not very strong — in 1914 they comprised only 12 percent of the total population of Palestine . The nationalist ideal, however, was weak among the Arabs, and even among articulate Arabs competing visions of Arab nationalism — Islamic , pan-Arab, and statism — inhibited coordinated efforts to achieve independence. A major asset to Zionism was that its chief spokesman, Chaim Weizmann , was an astute statesman and a scientist widely respected in Britain and he was well versed in European diplomacy. Weizmann understood better than the Arab leaders at the time that the future map of the Middle East would be determined less by the desires of its inhabitants than by Great Power rivalries, European strategic thinking, and domestic British politics.

Britain, in possession of the Suez Canal and playing a dominant role in India and Egypt , attached great strategic importance to the region. British Middle East policy, however, espoused conflicting objectives, and as a result London became involved in three distinct and contradictory negotiations concerning the fate of the region. The earliest British discussions of the Middle East question revolved around Sharif Husayn ibn Ali, scion of the Hashimite (also seen as Hashemite) family that claimed descent from the Prophet and acted as the traditional guardians of Islam's most holy sites of Mecca and Medina in the Arabian province of Hijaz. In February 1914, Amir Abdullah, son of Sharif Husayn, went to Cairo to visit Lord Kitchener, British agent and consul general in Egypt, where he inquired about the possibility of British support should his father stage a revolt against Turkey . Turkey and Germany were not yet formally allied, and Germany and Britain were not yet at war; Kitchener's reply was, therefore, noncommittal. Shortly after the outbreak of World War I in August 1914, Kitchener was recalled to London as secretary of state for war.

By 1915, as British military fortunes in the Middle East deteriorated, Kitchener saw the usefulness of transferring the Islamic caliphate — the caliph, or successor to the Prophet Muhammad , was the traditional leader of the Islamic world — to an Arab candidate indebted to Britain, and he energetically sought Arab support for the war against Turkey. In Cairo Sir Henry McMahon, the first British high commissioner in Egypt, conducted an extensive correspondence from July 1915 to January 1916 with Husayn, two of whose sons — Abdullah , later king of Jordan , and Faysal , later king of Syria (ejected by the French in 1920) and of Iraq (1921-33) — were to figure prominently in subsequent events. In a letter to McMahon enclosed with a letter dated July 14, 1915, from Abdullah, Husayn specified an area for Arab independence under the "Sharifian Arab Government" consisting of the Arabian Peninsula (except Aden) and the Fertile Crescent of Palestine, Lebanon , Syria, and Iraq.

In his letter of October 24, 1915, to Husayn, McMahon, on behalf of the British government, declared British support for postwar Arab independence, subject to certain reservations and exclusions of territory not entirely Arab or concerning which Britain was not free "to act without detriment to the interests of her ally, France." The territories assessed by the British as not purely Arab included: "The districts of Mersin and Alexandretta, and portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama, and Aleppo." As with the later Balfour Declaration , the exact meaning was not clear, although Arab spokesmen since then have usually maintained that Palestine was within the pledged area of independence. Although the Husayn- McMahon correspondence was not legally binding on either side, on June 5, 1916, Husayn launched the Arab Revolt against Turkey and in October declared himself "King of the Arabs." While Husayn and McMahon corresponded over the fate of the Middle East, the British were conducting negotiations with the French over the same territory.

Following the British military defeat at the Dardanelles in 1915, the Foreign Office sought a new offensive in the Middle East, which it thought could only be carried out by reassuring the French of Britain's intentions in the region. In February 1916, the Sykes-Picot Agreement (officially the "Asia Minor Agreement") was signed, which, contrary to the contents of the Husayn-McMahon correspondence, proposed to partition the Middle East into French and British zones of control and interest. Under the Sykes-Picot Agreement, Palestine was to be administered by an international "condominium" of the British, French, and Russians (also signatories to the agreement). The final British pledge, and the one that formally committed the British to the Zionist cause, was the Balfour Declaration of November 1917. Before the emergence of David Lloyd George as prime minister and Arthur James Balfour as foreign secretary in December 1916, the Liberal Herbert Asquith government had viewed a Jewish entity in Palestine as detrimental to British strategic aims in the Middle East. Lloyd George and his Tory supporters, however, saw British control over Palestine as much more attractive than the proposed British-French condominium.

Since the Sykes-Picot Agreement, Palestine had taken on increased strategic importance because of its proximity to the Suez Canal, where the British garrison had reached 300,000 men, and because of a planned British attack on Ottoman Syria originating from Egypt. Lloyd George was determined, as early as March 1917, that Palestine should become British and that he would rely on its conquest by British troops to obtain the abrogation of the Sykes-Picot Agreement. In the new British strategic thinking, the Zionists appeared as a potential ally capable of safeguarding British imperial interests in the region. Furthermore, as British war prospects dimmed throughout 1917, the War Cabinet calculated that supporting a Jewish entity in Palestine would mobilize America's influential Jewish community to support United States intervention in the war and sway the large number of Jewish Bolsheviks who participated in the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution to keep Russia in the war. Fears were also voiced in the Foreign Office that if Britain did not come out in favor of a Jewish entity in Palestine the Germans would preempt them.

Finally, both Lloyd George and Balfour were devout churchgoers who attached great religious significance to the proposed reinstatement of the Jews in their ancient homeland. The negotiations for a Jewish entity were carried out by Weizmann, who greatly impressed Balfour and maintained important links with the British media. In support of the Zionist cause, his protracted and skillful negotiations with the Foreign Office were climaxed on November 2, 1917, by the letter from the foreign secretary to Lord Rothschild, which became known as the Balfour Declaration. This document declared the British government's "sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations," viewed with favor "the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish People," and announced an intent to facilitate the achievement of this objective. The letter added the provision of "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country." The Balfour Declaration radically changed the status of the Zionist movement. It promised support from a major world power and gave the Zionists international recognition.

Zionism was transformed by the British pledge from a quixotic dream into a legitimate and achievable undertaking. For these reasons, the Balfour Declaration was widely criticized throughout the Arab world, and especially in Palestine, as contrary to the spirit of British pledges contained in the Husayn-McMahon correspondence. The wording of the document itself, although painstakingly devised, was interpreted differently by different people, according to their interests. Ultimately, it was found to contain two incompatible undertakings: establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jews and preservation of the rights of existing non-Jewish communities, i.e., the Arabs. The incompatibility sharpened over the succeeding years and became irreconcilable. On December 9, 1917, five weeks after the Balfour Declaration, British troops led by General Sir Edmund Allenby took Jerusalem from the Turks; Turkish forces in Syria were subsequently defeated; an armistice was concluded with Turkey on October 31, 1918; and all of Palestine came under British military rule.

British policy in the Arab lands of the now moribund Ottoman Empire was guided by a need to reduce military commitments, hold down expenditures, prevent a renewal of Turkish hegemony in the region, and safeguard Britain's strategic interest in the Suez Canal. The conflicting promises issued between 1915 and 1918 complicated the attainment of these objectives. Between January 1919 and January 1920, the Allied Powers met in Paris to negotiate peace treaties with the Central Powers. At the conference, Amir Faysal, representing the Arabs, and Weizmann, representing the Zionists, presented their cases. Although Weizmann and Faysal reached a separate agreement on January 3, 1919, pledging the two parties to cordial cooperation, the latter wrote a proviso on the document in Arabic that his signature was tied to Allied war pledges regarding Arab independence. Since these pledges were not fulfilled to Arab satisfaction after the war, most Arab leaders and spokesmen have not considered the Faysal-Weizmann agreement as binding.

The conferees faced the nearly impossible task of finding a compromise between the generally accepted idea of self- determination, wartime promises, and plans for a division of the spoils. They ultimately decided upon a mandate system whose details were laid out at the San Remo Conference of April 1920. The terms of the British Mandate were approved by the League of Nations Council on July 24, 1922, although they were technically not official until September 29, 1923. The United States was not a member of the League of Nations, but a joint resolution of the United States Congress on June 30, 1922, endorsed the concept of the Jewish national home. The Mandate's terms recognized the "historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine," called upon the mandatory power to "secure establishment of the Jewish National Home," and recognized "an appropriate Jewish agency" for advice and cooperation to that end. The WZO , which was specifically recognized as the appropriate vehicle, formally established the Jewish Agency in 1929.

Jewish immigration was to be facilitated, while ensuring that the "rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced." English, Arabic, and Hebrew were all to be official languages. At the San Remo Conference, the French also were assured of a mandate over Syria. They drove Faysal out of Damascus in the summer; the British provided him with a throne in Iraq a year later. In March 1921, Winston Churchill , then colonial secretary, established Abdullah as ruler of Transjordan under a separate British mandate. To the WZO, which by 1921 had a worldwide membership of about 770,000, the recognition in the Mandate was seen as a welcome first step. Although not all Zionists and not all Jews were committed at that time to conversion of the Jewish national home into a separate political state, this conversion became firm Zionist policy during the next twenty-five years. The patterns developed during these years strongly influenced the State of Israel proclaimed in 1948.

Arab spokesmen, such as Husayn and his sons, opposed the Mandate's terms because the Covenant of the League of Nations had endorsed popular determination and thereby, they maintained, supported the cause of the Arab majority in Palestine. Further, the covenant specifically declared that all other obligations and understandings inconsistent with it were abrogated. Therefore, Arab argument held that both the Balfour Declaration and the Sykes-Picot Agreement were null and void. Arab leaders particularly objected to the Mandate's numerous references to the "Jewish community," whereas the Arab people, then constituting about 88 percent of the Palestinian population, were acknowledged only as "the other sections." Prior to the Paris Peace Conference , Palestinian Arab nationalists had worked for a Greater Syria under Faysal. The British military occupation authority in Palestine, fearing an Arab rebellion, published an Anglo-French Joint Declaration, issued after the armistice with Turkey in November 1918, which called for self-determination for the indigenous people of the region.

By the end of 1919, the British had withdrawn from Syria (exclusive of Palestine), but the French had not yet entered (except in Lebanon) and Faysal had not been explicitly repudiated by Britain. In March 1920, a General Syrian Congress meeting in Damascus elected Faysal king of a united Syria, which included Palestine. This raised the hope of the Palestinian Arab population that the Balfour Declaration would be rescinded, setting off a feverish series of demonstrations in Palestine in the spring of 1920. From April 4 to 8, Arab rioters attacked the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem . Faysal's ouster by the French in the summer of 1920 led to further rioting in Jaffa (contemporary Yafo) as a large number of Palestinian Arabs who had been with Faysal returned to Palestine to fight against the establishment of a Jewish nation. The end of Faysal's Greater Syria experiment and the application of the mandate system, which artificially carved up the Arab East into new nation-states, had a profound effect on the history of the region in general and Palestine in particular.

The mandate system created an identity crisis among Arab nationalists that led to the growth of competing nationalisms: Arab versus Islamic versus the more parochial nationalisms of the newly created states. It also created a serious legitimacy problem for the new Arab elites, whose authority ultimately rested with their European benefactors. The combination of narrowly based leadership and the emergence of competing nationalisms stymied the Arab response to the Zionist challenge in Palestine. To British authorities, burdened with heavy responsibilities and commitments after World War I, the objective of the Mandate administration was peaceful accommodation and development of Palestine by Arabs and Jews under British control. Sir Herbert Samuels, the first high commissioner of Palestine, was responsible for keeping some semblance of order between the two antagonistic communities. In pursuit of this goal, Samuels, a Jew, was guided by two contradictory principles: liberalism and Zionism. He called for open Jewish immigration and land acquisition, which enabled thousands of highly committed and well-trained socialist Zionists to enter Palestine between 1919 and 1923. The Third Aliyah, as it was called, made important contributions to the development of Jewish agriculture, especially collective farming.

Samuels, however, also promised representative institutions, which, if they had emerged in the 1920s, would have had as their first objective the curtailment of Jewish immigration. According to the census of 1922, the Jews numbered only 84,000, or 11 percent of the population of Palestine. The Zionists, moreover, could not openly oppose the establishment of democratic structures, which was clearly in accordance with the Covenant of the League of Nations and the mandatory system. The Arabs of Palestine, however, believing that participation in Mandate-sanctioned institutions would signify their acquiescence to the Mandate and thus to the Balfour Declaration, refused to participate. As a result, Samuels's proposals for a legislative council, an advisory council, and an Arab agency envisioned as similar to the Jewish Agency, were all rejected by the Arabs. After the collapse of the bid for representative institutions, any possibility of joint consultation between the two communities ended.

BBC - History - World Wars: The Middle East during World War One The Middle East during World War One By Professor David R Woodward Last updated 2011-03-10 The Ottoman Empire called for a military jihad against France, Russia and Great Britain in November 1914. How did this affect subsequent Allied campaigns in the Middle East? David Woodward charts the demise of an empire and a dramatic shift in the region's balance of power. On this page Print this page The opening moves Few events in world history have had a more profound impact than that of World War One (1914-8). Although the German attempt to dominate Europe was thwarted in the end, the equilibrium of the region was also destroyed by the fierce fighting between its different elements. At the beginning of November 1914, the Ottoman Empire ...abandoned its ambivalent neutrality. The Middle East was no less affected by the conflict. After four centuries of continuous rule, the Ottoman Empire collapsed, creating a vacuum that contributed to tensions between local inhabitants and external powers or interests. The 'war to end all war' had not achieved its aim.

At the beginning of November 1914, the Ottoman Empire, the world's greatest independent Islamic power, abandoned its ambivalent neutrality towards the warring parties, and became a belligerent in the conflict, with the sultan declaring a military jihad (holy war) against France, Russia and Great Britain. The Ottoman Empire had recently been humiliated by setbacks in Libya and the Balkans. Participation in what had begun as a European war might seem to outside observers, therefore, to have been suicidal, but key elements in the government, impressed by German industrial and military power and motivated by dreams of imperial glory, greeted the expanding war as an opportunity to regain lost territories and incorporate new lands and nationalities into the empire. In a pre-emptive strike, London immediately landed an Anglo-Indian force at Basra. The Ottoman/Turkish army (some 600,000 troops divided into 38 divisions) was of an unknown quality. But with Germany as an ally, the Ottoman Empire represented a serious threat to the British Empire, so in a pre-emptive strike, London immediately landed an Anglo-Indian force at Basra, near the estuary of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers.

This was done to protect the Anglo-Persian oil pipeline, which was vital to the British navy, and to show the Union Jack in this strategically important area in the Persian Gulf. Within weeks the Central Powers struck back with a surprise attack against Britain's 'jugular vein', the Suez Canal. This attempt, in early February 1915, to breach British defences on the Suez Canal and raise an Islamic revolt in Egypt, failed however, and resulted in heavy losses for the attackers. Top Defeat at Gallipoli and in Mesopotamia British troops advance at Gallipoli, 1915 © Unwilling to commit all of its emerging military resources in 1915 to the Western Front, where trench warfare prevailed, the British leadership embraced a naval offensive against Istanbul to force the Ottoman Empire out of the war. When the Royal Navy in February and March was unable to fight its way through the Dardanelles to place the Ottoman capital under its big guns, the military authorities hastily assembled an expeditionary force to land on the Gallipoli peninsula. The limited, defensive stance at Basra had evolved into a distant and risky advance.

The muddled thinking that led to this campaign continued during the savage fighting, and the predominantly British force suffered heavy losses (205,000 British soldiers, and 47,000 French - with the sick included in the figures) and had to be withdrawn. The Ottoman/Turkish Fifth Army, well armed and fighting from strong defensive positions, had proved more than a match for the Allies. As the Gallipoli campaign wound down, an Anglo-Indian force was cut off and surrounded at Kut-el-Amara, a town about 100 miles south of Baghdad. The limited, defensive stance at Basra had evolved into a distant and risky advance up the Tigris toward Baghdad, and this had been the result. A strong British presence in Mesopotamia had no connection to the defeat of Britain's primary strategic rival, Germany. Political objectives, as had been the case in the Dardanelles/Gallipoli venture, had trumped military considerations - the Anglo-Indian force did not have the necessary reserves or logistical support to retain Baghdad, even if they had been able to capture it.

Moreover, a strong British presence in Mesopotamia had no connection to the defeat of Britain's primary strategic rival, Germany. But the Indian government were concerned that a holy war might be ignited in Persia and Afghanistan, thus threatening India, and they wanted British prestige upheld in the Islamic world to avert such a war. A more difficult theatre in which to fight would be hard to imagine. Flies and mosquitoes attacked the troops, many of whom became sick. Soldiers froze during the winter nights, and were overcome by heat during the summer. Dust turned to mud when the banks of the Tigris overflowed during the rainy season. Top Britain regains the initiative 1916-17 Arab prisoners of war in a camp in Mesopotamia, 1916 © London reacted to the retreat from Gallipoli and the eventual surrender of the Anglo-Indian force at Kut-el-Amara in April 1916 by redoubling its efforts against the Central Powers in the Middle East. As a wealthy industrial power, Britain had the resources that the Ottoman Empire (even with German assistance) could not hope to match.

In Mesopotamia a new commander, General Sir Stanley Frederick Maude, assembled a large force of some 150,000 men, equipped with modern weapons of war. Basra was transformed into a modern port, a railway and metal road was constructed, and river transportation on the Tigris was dramatically expanded. The Sinai Desert, with its sand storms and searing temperatures, had to be crossed. In Egypt, too, British forces gained a new commander, General Sir Archibald Murray, and additional resources. By stages the mission of the Egyptian Expeditionary Force (EEF) evolved from a defence of Egypt to an invasion of Palestine. First, the Sinai Desert, with its sand storms and searing temperatures, had to be crossed, a test of endurance as well as of engineering for the troops involved. Access to water dictated what could be achieved. Tens of thousands of camels and drivers were required to supply the thirsty soldiers, while a water pipe and a railway were extended to the borders of Palestine. Top War on several fronts The Indian infantry made a key contribution to Allied campaigns © In early 1917, Britain seemed on the verge of knocking Turkey out of the war, and was enjoying success on several fronts.

On 11 March, Maude's forces captured Baghdad. Two weeks later, Murray's advance force, having cleared Ottoman/Turkish forces out of the Sinai, launched a lightening strike with infantry and cavalry against Gaza, the gateway to Palestine, which was also occupied by the Ottoman Empire. The attempt to take Gaza, however, failed, when Murray's commanders broke off battle with victory within their grasp. Encouraged by Murray's misleading report of this battle, London ordered another assault, but this second Battle of Gaza (17 -19 April), a frontal assault with inadequate artillery support against strong defences, was a disaster. Britain now faced the frightening prospect of being the mainstay of the war. The war now took a turn for the worse, although more because of a downturn in Allied fortunes in Europe than because of Murray's failure to capture Gaza. Germany's resumption of unrestricted U-boat warfare took a terrible toll on Allied shipping, and this threatened Britain's ability to supply and maintain the so-called 'side shows' taking place outside Europe. The March Revolution led to a paralysis of the Russian military effort against both Germany and Turkey, and on the Western Front, the failure of the Spring French offensive prompted a mutiny of the French Army.

Britain now faced the frightening prospect of being the mainstay of the war against the Central Powers, both in Europe and in the Middle East. Top Defeat of the Ottoman Empire General Allenby entering Jerusalem on 11 December, 1917 © Murray's failure to capture Gaza led to his replacement by General Sir Edmund Allenby, a soldier of great vigour and imagination, who was able to create a personal bond with his troops. His government hoped to achieve a concrete victory to boost morale at home, and gave him the flexibility to advance on Jerusalem. In October, when the weather was more favourable, Allenby made good use of his infantry and a large mounted force, which included many troopers from Australia and New Zealand, to break through the Gaza-Beersheba Front. And after a difficult advance across the Judean hills, he walked through the Jaffa Gate on 11 December 1917 as the 34th conqueror of Jerusalem, the first Christian conqueror since the Crusades. He walked through the Jaffa Gate...as the first Christian conqueror since the Crusades.

Many of Allenby's soldiers were deeply conscious that they were fighting on sacred soil, and some viewed themselves as modern-day crusaders, but their leader was acutely aware that many of his soldiers and workers were Islamic, and he vigorously played down any notion of a crusade. Convinced that neither side had the means to achieve victory in France in 1918, Prime Minister David Lloyd George sought to make Allenby's theatre the focus of his country's military effort. Germany's massive offensives closer to home during the first half of 1918, however, forced the government to recall most of Allenby's British soldiers to France. Allenby, who retained his cavalry, received replacements for his infantry in Egypt from many sources, predominately from India but also from many other diverse nations ranging from Burma to the West Indies. Since 19 September Allenby's forces had advanced hundreds of miles and netted over 75,000 prisoners. Allenby returned to the offensive at the Battle of Megiddo, on 19 September 1918.

With a decided advantage in manpower, artillery, air power and morale, and assisted by Arab allies on his flank, he quickly destroyed the Ottoman/Turkish armies facing him. Once the enemy front was broken, the EEF's cavalry dominated the campaign. Damascus fell on 1 October, Aleppo, the last city to fall in the campaign, on 26 October. Five days later an armistice with the Ottoman Empire came into effect. Since 19 September Allenby's forces had advanced hundreds of miles and netted over 75,000 prisoners. Top The aftermath General Allenby with Iraq's King Feisal I, c 1920 © The war ended with the British occupying the territory that was to become Iraq, Palestine, Trans-Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. With the Ottoman Empire destroyed, Russia paralysed by foreign intervention and civil war, and French influence limited somewhat by their minor military role in the Middle East, Britain's military success made her the dominant power in the region. The resulting settlement, which fostered an instability that continues to be a source of conflict today, generated much controversy at the time and has continued to do so ever since.

They believed that the western powers, especially the British, had acted with arrogance. Employing bags of gold, the diplomacy of Lawrence of Arabia, and promises of Arab independence, the British had encouraged an Arab uprising in 1916 against the Turks. Although the Hashemite Arabs were rewarded with considerable territory, they and other Arab nationalists believed that they had been 'robbed' when the British did not fully deliver on their pledges of independence. They believed that the western powers, especially the British, had acted with arrogance, drawing borders and creating nations with little or no regard for the wishes of the local inhabitants. The fate of Palestine, occupied by the British, especially provoked Arab frustration and anger. (In 1917 the British Foreign Secretary, Arthur Balfour, had supported a Jewish home in Palestine.) But in important respects the Arab view of the peace settlement (which is supported by many western historians) is a caricature of what actually happened. In a revisionist work, Efraim Karsh and Inari Karsh have made a convincing argument that many forces, both local and foreign, were at work at the time the settlement was agreed.

In their words, 'even at the weakest point in their modern history, during the First World War and its immediate wake, Middle Eastern actors were not hapless victims of predatory imperial powers, but active participants in the restructuring of their region.' And if the French and British had granted 'self-determination'...it is possible that the result would have been the balkanisation of the area. They argue, for example, that Iraq and Trans-Jordan were not simply British inventions, but owed their existence to a compromise between Hashemite imperial greed and well-intended British efforts to meet local needs and allay the fears and suspicions of their allies. It is perhaps only proper to note that if Germany had won the war, the Ottoman Empire would have been expanded, subjecting many Arabs and other nationalities to its rule. And if the French and British had granted 'self-determination' to the inhabitants of this region it is possible that the result would have been the balkanisation of the area, with fragile and often antagonistic fiefdoms and kingdoms prevailing. It seems likely that, no matter how this war in the Middle East had been resolved, the region was destined to suffer instability and conflict in the years ahead.

Books The Neglected War: Mesopotamia 1914-1918 by AJ Barker (Faber & Faber, 1967) The Last Crusade: The Palestine Campaign in the First World War by Anthony Bruce (John Murray, 2002) Allenby and British Strategy in the Middle East 1917-1919 bby Mathew Hughes (Frank Cass Publishers, 1999) Empires of the Sand: The Struggle for Mastery in the Middle East 1789-1923 by Efraim Karsh & Inari Karsh (Harvard University Press, 1999) Paris 1919 by Margaret MacMillan (Random House, 2001) Gallipoli 1915 by Tim Travers (Tempus Publishing Inc, 2001) Field Marshal Sir William Robertson: Chief of the Imperial General Staff by David R Woodward (Praeger, 1998) Top About the author David R Woodward is Professor of History at Marshall University, West Virginia.

He has written numerous books on the diplomatic and military history of World War One, including David Lloyd George and the Generals (Associated University Presses, 1983; Frank Cass, 2003) and Trial by Friendship (University of Kentucky Press, 1993). He is currently working on a book, Tommies and 'Johnny Turk': A Personal History of British Operations in Egypt and Palestine, 1914-1918. Timeline of events in 1918 and the end of World War One The French Marshall Ferdinand Foch is appointed Supreme Allied Commander on the Western Front. 1 April The Royal Flying Corps and the Royal Naval Air Service are merged to form the Royal Air Force . 9 April Germany launches a second Spring Offensive, the Battle of the Lys, in the British sector of Armentieres. The front line Portuguese defenders were quickly overrun by overwhelming numbers of German troops. The capture of the Channel supply ports at Calais, Dunkirk and Boulogne could choke the British into defeat. 23 April The Zeebrugge Raid was an attempt by the British Royal Navy to block the Belgium port of Bruges-Zeebrugge.

The port was an important base for German U-boats. The raid was only a partial military success but an important propaganda victory for the Allies. 25 May German U-boats appear in U.S. waters for first time. 27 May The Third German Spring Offensive, Third Battle of the Aisne, begins in the French sector along Chemin des Dames. The main objective of the German's was to split French and British forces in an attempt to gain a quick victory before American troops were deployed in greater numbers on the battlefields of Europe. 28 May U.S. forces, some 4,000 troops, are victorious in their first major action of the war at the Battle of Cantigny. 15 July The final phase of the great German spring push, the Second Battle of Marne begins. The heavy toll on the German Army from the previous Spring Offences was beginning to show, with depleted and exhausted troops. 16 July The former Russian Tsar Nicholas II, his wife, and children, are murdered by the Bolsheviks. 18 July The Allies counterattack against German forces, seizing the initiative on the Western Front.

8 Aug Start of the Battle of Amiens, the opening phase of the Allied Hundred Days Offensive, that would ultimately lead to the end of World War I. Allied armoured divisions smash through the once impregnable German trenches. Erich Ludendorff calls it "the black day of the German Army." 15 Sept Start of an Allied offensive against Bulgarian forces. The Vardar Offensive would last little over a week with Bulgaria eventually signing an armistice and exiting the war. Bulgaria's King Ferdinand would abdicate shortly afterwards. 19 Sept The British begin an offensive against Turkish forces in Palestine, the Battle of Megiddo. The battle would prove to be the final victory of British General Edmund Allenby's conquest of Palestine. Unlike most other offences of World War I, Allenby's campaigns had succeeded with relatively little cost. 26 Sept The Meuse-Argonne offensive begins, this will be the last Franco-American campaign of the war. It was during this battle that Corporal (later Sergeant) Alvin York made his famous capture of 132 German prisoners. Sargeant Alvin York Germany asks the Allies for an armistice.

mid Oct The Allies have taken control of almost all of German-occupied France and part of Belgium. 21 Oct Germany ceases its policy of unrestricted submarine warfare. 30 Oct After refusing orders to put to sea in a bid to launch a final suicide attack on the British Royal Navy, sailors of the German Navy mutiny at the port of Kiel, After being forced back by Allied troops, Turkey requests an armistice. 3 Nov Following the fall of Trieste, Austro-Hungary concludes an armistice with the Allies. 7 Nov Germany begins negotiations for an armistice with the Allies in Ferdinand Foch's railway carriage headquarters at Compiegne. 9 Nov The German Kaiser Wilhelm II abdicates. 11 Nov At the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month, in the French town of Redonthes, Germany signs an armistice with the Allies - the official date of the end of World War One. Signing of the armistice with Germany on 11 November in a railroad carriage at Compiègne. Post-war 1919 With the war now over the Allies squabble as to the terms of the Treaty of Versailles.

Germany is plagued by chaos and violence as Communists attempt to seize power. 12 Jan Diplomats from more than 30 countries met at the Paris Peace Conference in an attempt to form a lasting peace throughout the world. 7 May A draft copy of the Treaty of Versailles is submitted to the German delegation. 21 June After waiting for the British fleet to leave its base on exercise, Rear Admiral Ludvig von Reuter, the officer in command of the 74 interned German Navy ships being held at Scapa Flow, gave the order to scuttle his ships to prevent them falling into British hands. Nine German sailors were shot as they attempted to scuttle their ship, the last casualties of the First World War. 28 June Exactly five years after the assassination of the Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the Treaty of Versailles is signed between the Allies and Germany at Versailles, officially ending the Great War. Many people in France and Britain were appalled that there was to be no trial for the German Kaiser or the other war leaders of the Central Powers. 10 Sept Treaty of St Germain-en-Laye signed between the Allies and Austria. 4 June 1920 Treaty of Trianon signed between the Allies and Hungary.

24 July 1923 Palestine 1918 to 1948 - History Learning Site Palestine 1918 to 1948 Citation: C N Trueman "Palestine 1918 to 1948" historylearningsite.co.uk. The History Learning Site, 26 May 2015. 16 Aug 2016. Palestine is the name (first referred to by the Ancient Greeks) of an area in the Middle East situated between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Palestine was absorbed into the Ottoman Empire in 1517 and remained under the rule of the Turks until World War One . Towards the end of this war, the Turks were defeated by the British forces led by General Allenby. In the peace talks that followed the end of the war, parts of the Ottoman Empire were handed over to the French to control and parts were handed over to the British – including Palestine. Britain governed this area under a League of Nations mandate from 1920 to 1948.

To the Arab population who lived there, it was their homeland and had been promised to them by the Allies for help in defeating the Turks by the McMahon Agreement – though the British claimed the agreement gave no such promise. The same area of land had also been promised to the Jews (as they had interpreted it) in the Balfour Declaration and after 1920, many Jews migrated to the area and lived with the far more numerous Arabs there. At this time, the area was ruled by the British and both Arabs and Jews appeared to live together in some form of harmony in the sense that both tolerated then existence of the other. There were problems in 1921 but between that year and 1928/29, the situation stabilised. The main problem after the war for Palestine was perceived beliefs. The Arabs had joined the Allies to fight the Turks during the war and convinced themselves that they were due to be given what they believed was their land once the war was over. Clashing with this was the belief among all Jews that the Balfour Declaration had promised them the same piece of territory. In August 1929, relations between the Jews and Arabs in Palestine broke down.

The focal point of this discontent was Jerusalem. The primary cause of trouble was the increased influx of Jews who had emigrated to Palestine. The number of Jews in the region had doubled in ten years The city of Jerusalem also had major religious significance for both Arabs and Jews and over 200 deaths occurred in just four days in August (23rd to the 26th). Arab nationalism was whipped up by the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haji Amin al-Husseini. He claimed that the number of Jews threatened the very lifestyle of the Arabs in Palestine. The violence that occurred in August 1929 did not deter Jews from going to Palestine. In 1931, 4,075 Jews emigrated to the region. In 1935, it was 61,854. The Mufti estimated that by the 1940’s there would be more Jews in Palestine than Arabs and that their power in the area would be extinguished on a simple numerical basis. In May 1936, more violence occurred and the British had to restore law and order using the military. Thirty four soldiers were killed in the process. The violence did not stop.

In fact, it became worse after November 1937. For the Arabs there were two enemies – the Jews and the British authorities based in Palestine via their League mandate. For the Jews there were also two enemies – the Arabs and the British. Therefore, the British were pushed into the middle of a conflict they had seemingly little control over as the two other sides involved were so driven by their own beliefs. In an effort to end the violence, the British put a quota on the number of Jews who could enter Palestine in any one year. They hoped to appease the Arabs in the region but also keep on side with the Jews by recognising that Jews could enter Palestine – but in restricted numbers. They failed on both counts. Both the Jews and the Arabs continued to attack the British. The Arabs attacked because they believed that the British had failed to keep their word after 1918 and because they believed that the British were not keeping the quotas agreed to as they did little to stop illegal landings into Palestine made by the Jews. The Jews attacked the British authorities in Palestine simply because of the quota which they believed was grossly unfair. The British had also imposed restrictions on the amount of land Jews could buy in Palestine.

An uneasy truce occurred during the war when hostilities seemed to cease. This truce, however, was only temporary. Many Jews had fought for the Allies during World War Two and had developed their military skills as a result. After the war ended in 1945, these skills were used in acts of terrorism. The new Labour Government of Britain had given the Jews hope that they would be given more rights in the area. Also in the aftermath of the Holocaust in Europe, many throughout the world were sympathetic to the plight of the Jews at the expense of the Arabs in Palestine. However, neither group got what they were looking for. The British still controlled Palestine. As a result, the Jews used terrorist tactics to push their claim for the area. Groups such as the Stern Gang and Irgun Zvai Leumi attacked the British that culminated in the destruction of the British military headquarters in Palestine – the King David Hotel. Seemingly unable to influence events in Palestine, the British looked for a way out. In 1947, the newly formed United Nations accepted the idea to partition Palestine into a zone for the Jews (Israel) and a zone for the Arabs (Palestine).

With this United Nations proposal, the British withdrew from the region on May 14th 1948. Almost immediately, Israel was attacked by Arab nations that surrounded in a war that lasted from May 1948 to January 1949. Palestinian Arabs refused to recognise Israel and it became the turn of the Israeli government itself to suffer from terrorist attacks when fedayeen (fanatics) from the Palestinian Arabs community attacked Israel. Such attacks later became more organised with the creation of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO). To the Palestinian Arabs, the area the Jews call Israel, will always be Palestine. To the Jews it is Israel. There have been very few years of peace in the region since 1948 .

Question: Who was Allied commander in Palestine at the end of World War I?
Answer: GENERAL ALLENBY